I like man find it maddening that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than a 2 million vote margin, yet the dangerous and unqualified loser, Donald Trump will be president unless the electors in the Electoral College do their job and confirm Clinton as president. A Harvard professor makes the argument of why the Electoral College electors should over ride the Electoral College results and confirm the winner of the popular vote as the next president of the United States. Yes, there would howls and screams from Trump and his would be fascist and/or Klan member supporters. Here are highlights of the argument via the Washington Post:

Conventional
wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost
the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is
an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It
should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic
traditions — most important, the electors themselves.

The framers believed, asAlexander Hamilton put it,
that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].”
But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety
valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the
people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the
people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious
combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern
their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner
take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be
constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the
people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic
values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a
wheel.

Many think we
should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should.
Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the
people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of
massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body
confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises
its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto
the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.

So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?

Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a
president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on
the cusp of the 21st.

In 2000, George
W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al
Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.

In both cases, the result violated what
has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one
person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily
than the votes of others. Today,the vote of a citizenin Wyoming is four times as powerful
as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three
times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental
value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our
Constitution compels this result.

Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our
president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely.
It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be
a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.

In this
election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote
is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like
her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her
because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds
of a reasonable judgment by the people.

Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they
decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask
themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.

The
framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by
leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.

Who knows where a recount in three key swing states - Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania - will lead, but at this point I support almost anything that could save the nation from the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency. The thought of Trump appointing Supreme Court justices even as he uses the office of the presidency to further enrich himself is stomach wrenching. Given the unprecedented evidence of Russian efforts to influence the election in favor of Trump, if nothing else the recount will confirm that hacking did not occur. The down side of that result, of course, is that the foulness and mindlessness of 25% of American's registered voters would be confirmed. The New York Times looks at the recount effort. Here are excerpts:

The top lawyer for Hillary
Clinton’s presidential bid said Saturday that the campaign would
join a third-party candidate’s effort to seek a full recount in Wisconsin, and
potentially two other states, though he said the campaign had seen no
“actionable evidence” of vote hacking.

In a post on Medium, Marc Elias, the campaign’s
general counsel, described an intensive behind-the-scenes effort by the campaign
to look for signs of Russian hacker activity or other irregularities in the
vote count.

The essay suggested that the
campaign was joining the recount effort with little expectation that it would
change the result. But many of the campaign’s supporters, picking up on its
frequent complaints of Russian interference in the election, have
enthusiastically backed the recount effort led by Jill Stein,
who was the Green Party candidate.

Ms. Stein filed for a
recount in Wisconsin on Friday afternoon, about an hour before the deadline.

“Now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to
participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to
all sides.”

Should Ms. Stein pursue
additional recounts, “we will take the same approach in those states as well,”
he wrote. But he noted that the “number of votes separating Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the
largest margin ever overcome in a recount.”

Mr.
Trump issued a statement on Saturday calling the recount push “ridiculous” and
“a scam by the Green Party.”

The Obama administration issued a statement to The New York Times on
Friday in response to questions about intelligence findings related to Russian
interference in the election. In the statement, it said it had concluded that
the election had been free of interference.

The administration issued a
second statement on Saturday saying that “the federal government did not
observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our
electoral process on Election Day.”

Now Mrs. Clinton finds herself in a difficult position of not wanting
to lead the charge for a recount that Democrats believe will go nowhere, but
also not wanting to abandon supporters who have donated to Ms. Stein’s
last-ditch effort.

Mr. Elias’s post offered a
revealing look at how much time and energy the campaign has spent in the past
two weeks looking for evidence of Russian hacking or other irregularities, and
how it has tried to keep those efforts secret.

“Since the day
after the election, we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts
combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result,”
Mr. Elias wrote.

“Most
of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has
unfortunately been the subject of leaks,” he wrote, a reference to
conversations between Mr. Podesta and a group of experts that included J. Alex
Halderman, a computer scientist with deep experience in the vulnerabilities of
voting systems.

The Founding Fathers were very suspicious of potential efforts of foreign powers to influence the new nation's leaders, especially the president. As a result, they wrote the so-called emoluments clause into the United Sates Constitution which provides in relevant part as follows:

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
[the United States] shall, without Consent of Congress, accept ... any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State."

The goal was to prevent bribery of government officials and office holders and to seek to ensure that the best interest of the nation rather than personal financial gain was the guiding motivation for decisions made by office holders. Up until now, there has been little focus on the Emoluments Clause because (i) most office holders were not in positions to be easily bribed or influenced by financial benefits and (ii) for decades Presidents have liquidated assets and placed them in blind trusts to avoid even the appearance of out right conflict of interest. With the election of Donald Trump - a man obsessed with enriching himself and satiating his unrestrained narcissism - suddenly the Emoluments Clause is looming large. Indeed, it could be what leads to Trump's impeachment early on during his term. A piece in NPR looks at the likely coming scandals and controversies. Here are highlights:

Donald Trump's extensive business dealings around the globe
have focused attention on an obscure provision of the Constitution most law
professors barely look at — the Emoluments Clause. Now, one of the hottest
legal debates around is whether the president-elect is going to violate the
Constitution if he continues doing business with companies controlled by
foreign governments.

Emolument is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the
returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation
or perquisites."

The Foreign
Emoluments Clause can be found in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It
provides that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the
United States] shall, without Consent of Congress, accept ... any present, Emolument,
Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign
State."

The clause has been
interpreted as an anti-bribery provision by constitutional scholars.

"The
underlying concern of the clause is divided loyalties," said Erik Jensen,
a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. "The founders wanted
U.S. officials not to have any arrangements under which there could be
questions about whether they were acting in the best interests of the United
States, or in the interests of a foreign state."

Trump's companies do deal with businesses that are
controlled or influenced by foreign government officials. Legal experts say the
potential for constitutional violations is high.

Take the Bank of
China, for example. It's a lender for one of Trump's buildings in Midtown
Manhattan. If the Bank of China were to offer Trump a lower interest rate on
that loan after he takes office, it might raise an Emoluments Clause issue.
Some legal scholars say it could be perceived as an attempt to curry favor with
the president or influence policy.

Not only have prior presidents been careful to steer
clear of any perceived violations of the clause, there's never been a president
like Trump, whose companies have such vast global reach. And Trump hasn't fully
disclosed the full extent of his global business dealings.

"The services theory would be along the lines of,
'Well, if Donald Trump himself as president could not perform services for the
foreign government, he can't have his hired help — people who work for him in
that hotel — provide those services, and then he receives the payment.' That
would be an end-run around the prohibition on any type of emolument," said
Painter.

The issue of
whether a U.S. government official is violating the Emoluments Clause for
services rendered actually does comes up in real life, says Ken Gross, a
government ethics lawyer in Washington, D.C. Sometimes government officials go
on a foreign detail or sabbatical and want to earn compensation for teaching at
a government-funded university in that foreign country. In those cases, Gross
said, U.S. government officials have had to forego pay to avoid violations of
the clause.

Legal standing depends on how you articulate the injury.
Here's one theory of injury: Trump is enriching himself at the expense of
companies that can't compete for business the way the president of the United
States can. So maybe a company that's lost business because of some financial
transaction between Trump Organization and a foreign government could
articulate a legal claim.

Or, the perceived
harm could be more nebulous. Here's another theory: Trump is opening himself up
to attempts by foreign governments that want to influence U.S. policy. But who
would have standing to bring a legal claim in that case? Legal experts say it's
not clear.

[T]he best option for Trump is to simply liquidate his
stake in his company — that is, take the company public, sell off all his
shares and put the cash proceeds in a blind trust. That way, if there are any
entanglements between the Trump Organization and foreign countries — he'll be
cleared of any conflicts.

But nobody's
holding their breath for that to happen anytime soon.

Given Trump's documented history of shady business dealings and selling others down the river financially so as to benefit himself, it is, in my opinion, a pretty safe bet that Trump will put his personal finances ahead of the interest of the nation. This is why a greed driven narcissist should never be elected to high political office.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Per the last two posts, really I have no use for Trump supporters who, despite their gyrations to explain their vote in terms other than racism and bigotry, are fooling no one other than themselves. One Trump supporter in Alabama was honest enough to clearly state her reasoning. Her honesty - and open racism - cost her her job and rightfully so given her position dealing with the public, which in Alabama includes many blacks. AL.com looks at Regions Bank's decision to fire this KKK member want to be. Here are highlights:

A Regions Bank senior-level employee who was
labeled "Racist of the Week" on social media after posting comments
on Facebook derogatory of President Obama and his family, some of which alluded
to slavery, is no longer with the company, the bank says.

June Pridmore was senior vice president of loan
operations since 2008, according to her LinkedIn profile, which has been
deleted.

"I voted [Trump] in," she wrote, in part.
"I like him. He has a beautiful wife unlike the ugly and embarrassing
woman (for lack of a better word), in the White House now. Ms. Trump's face
would make Michele (sic) O'Bama (sic) a Sunday face." . . . .

Not surprisingly, the comments, like the spate of
similar racists thought expressed through social media since President-elect
Donald Trump's victory, ignited a social media firestorm.

Regions, headquartered in Birmingham, initially
said it launched an investigation and revealed its response today.

Bank spokesperson Jeremy King said: "We
appreciate the concerns shared about offensive social media comments that were
made through an associate's personal Facebook account. We want you to know that
we share those concerns. Those comments do not reflect our values as a company
or the way we do business. The associate is no longer an employee of the
company."

Pridmore's comments also raised concerns about
whether her apparent biases might have influenced any loan approvals.

I can only imagine what Ms. Pridmore thinks of gays and Jews, not to mention Hispanics and non-Christians.

Yes, each of us is entitled to believe what we want, even if it is utterly untrue and/or motivated by racism, homophobia and/or bigotry. That doesn't mean that I and others have to respect the views and beliefs of those who we view as clinging to ignorance and hatred of others. Sadly, many of us will nonetheless suffer the consequences of the votes of those played for fools by Donald Trump and other Republican scam artists who sold a false bill of goods to individuals only too ready to fall of appeals to racism, anti-immigrant animus or a last gasp of inflicting their poisonous religious beliefs on all of citizenry. Now, the question is that of how soon it will be before these cretins realize that they were conned? Or will further GOP appeals to racism and bigotry make them close their eyes to the fact that they duped yet again? A column in the Washington Post looks at this question. Here are excerpts:

While we’re
still analyzing the election results and debating the importance of different
factors to the final outcome, everyone agrees that white working class voters
played a key part in Donald Trump’s victory, in some cases by switching their
votes and in some cases by turning out when they had been nonvoters before.

And now that he’s about to take office, he’s ready to deliver
on what he promised them, right? Well,maybe not so much:

President-elect
Donald Trump abruptly abandoned some of his most tendentious campaign promises
Tuesday, saying he does not plan to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a
private email system or the dealings of her family foundation, has an “open
mind” about a climate-change accord from which he vowed to withdraw the United
States and is no longer certain that torturing terrorism suspects is a good
idea.

The billionaire real estate developer also dismissed any need
to disentangle himself from his financial holdings, despite rising questions
about how his global business dealings might affect his decision-making as the
nation’s chief executive.

[A]t
the same time, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are
getting ready to move on their highest priorities, cutting taxes for the
wealthy, scrapping oversight on Wall Street, and lightening regulations on big
corporations.

What are you
thinking as you watch this?

If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that
it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he
was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d
have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it
to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told
you is already being revealed as a lie.

During
the campaign, Trump made two kinds of promises to those white working class
voters. One was very practical, focused on economics. In coal country, he said
he’d bring back all the coal jobs that have been lost to cheap natural gas
(even as he promotes more fracking of natural gas; figure that one out). In the
industrial Midwest, he said he’d bring back all the labor-intensive factory
jobs that were mostly lost to automation, not trade deals. These promises were
utterly ludicrous, but most of the target voters seemed not to care.

The
second kind of promise was emotional and expressive. It was about turning back
the clock to a time when immigrants hadn’t come to your town, when women
weren’t so uppity, when you could say whatever you wanted and you didn’t feel
like the culture and the economy were leaving you behind.

So
what are we left with? What remains is Trump’s erratic whims, his boundless
greed, and the core of Republican policies Congress will pursue, which are most
definitely not geared toward the interests of working class whites. He can gut
environmental regulations, but that doesn’t mean millions of people are going
to head back to the coal mines — it was market forces more than anything else
that led to coal’s decline. He can renegotiate trade deals, but that doesn’t
mean that the labor-intensive factory jobs are coming back. And by the way, the
high wages, good benefits, and job security those jobs used to offer? That was
thanks to labor unions, which Republicans are now going to try to destroy once
and for all.

It was not only angry unemployed rural/under employed, low information whites who voted against their own economic interest when they cast their vote for Donald Trump and other Republicans. Many of the elderly did the same and will likely now face the consequences as Congressional Republicans now feel empowered to move forward on a long held dream: gutting Medicare and turning it into a limited voucher program. The pipe dream of Republicans is that "increased competition will drive down premium costs" - something that has NOT happened in the regular heath insurance arena. Faced with suddenly vastly increased medical care costs, many of the elderly will find their so-called golden years turning into nightmare years. Indeed, Paul Ryan may get his wish at long last of forcing many seniors to live off inadequate resources once they must choose between eating, having heat in the winter or medical care. Meanwhile, Ryan will bloviate about his Catholic values even as he utter betrays the Church's social gospel message and cuts healthcare support in order to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy. The man, as are his GOP allies, is evil. As for those who voted Republican, they once again allowed Republican appeals to their racism, religious extremism and/or general bigotry to cut their own throats. The New York Times looks at the coming GOP effort to end Medicare. Here are excerpts:

[W]ith Election Day behind them, emboldened House Republicans say they
will move forward on a years-old effort to shift Medicare away from its
open-ended commitment to pay for medical services and toward a fixed government
contribution for each beneficiary.

The idea rarely came up
during Mr. Trump’s march toward the White House, but a battle over the future
of Medicare could roil Washington during his first year in office, whether he
wants it or not.

“Let me say unequivocally to
you now: I have fought to protect Medicare for this generation and for future
generations,” Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana, a Democrat running for
re-election in 2018, said this week in a video message to constituents. “I have
opposed efforts to privatize Medicare in the past, and I will oppose any effort
to privatize Medicare or turn it into a voucher program in the future.”

For nearly six years, Speaker Paul
D. Ryan has championed the new approach, denounced by Democrats as
“voucherizing” Medicare. Representative Tom Price of Georgia, the House Budget Committee
chairman and a leading candidate to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and
human services, has also embraced the idea, known as premium support.

And
Democrats are relishing the fight and preparing to defend the program, which
was created in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. They believe
that if Mr. Trump chooses to do battle over Medicare, he would squander
political capital, as President George W. Bush did with an effort to add
private investment accounts to Social
Security after his re-election in 2004.

Democrats will “stand firmly
and unified” against Mr. Ryan if he tries to “shatter the sacred guarantee that
has protected generations of seniors,” said Representative Nancy
Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.

Republicans have pressed for
premium support since Mr. Ryan first included it in a budget blueprint in 2011.
As he envisions it, Medicare beneficiaries would buy health insurance from one of a number of
competing plans. The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program would compete
directly with plans offered by private insurers like Humana, UnitedHealth Group
and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Democrats say that premium support would privatize Medicare, replacing
the current government guarantee with skimpy vouchers — “coupon care for
seniors.” The fear is that the healthiest seniors would choose private
insurance, lured by offers of free health club memberships and other wellness
programs, leaving traditional Medicare with sicker, more expensive patients and
higher premiums.

“Beneficiaries would have to
pay much more to stay in traditional fee-for-service Medicare,” said John K.
Gorman, a former Medicare official who is now a consultant to many insurers.
“Regular Medicare would become the province of affluent beneficiaries who can
buy their way out of” private plans.

“I am terrified of vouchers,” said Kim Ebb, 92, who lives in a
retirement community in Bethesda, Md., and has diabetes, atrial fibrillation and irritable bowel syndrome. “You get a fixed
amount of money to draw on for your expenses. Then you are on your own.”Charles R. Drapeau, 64, of
East Waterboro, Me., said he was rattled by the Republican plans.

“I’m scared to death,” said
Mr. Drapeau, who has multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, and takes a drug that costs more
than $10,000 a month. “We don’t know exactly how it will work, but just the
fact that they are talking about messing with Medicare, it’s frightening to
me.”

Mr.
Gorman said that premium support would be “a seismic change” in Medicare and
could increase costs for many people in the traditional fee-for-service
program, fueling a big increase in enrollment in private Medicare Advantage
plans.

The
Congressional Budget Office analyzed two of the leading options and found that
“most beneficiaries who wished to remain in the fee-for-service program would
pay much higher premiums, on average, under either alternative.” At the same
time, the budget office said the proposal could slow the growth of Medicare
spending if more beneficiaries enrolled in lower-cost private plans.

Consumer advocates express several concerns about premium support.
Private plans, under pressure to rein in costs, could respond by creating
smaller networks of doctors and hospitals. Such plans would then be less
attractive to sicker patients who need more health care services.

“What happens if the voucher
doesn’t grow with the cost of health care?” asked Leslie B. Fried, a health
lawyer at the National Council on Aging, a service and advocacy group. “Will
people have more and more out-of-pocket costs?”

The winners? The wealthy who receive tax cuts and the insurance companies. The losers? The average American. Welcome to the Trump/GOP America.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

One of the burdens of living in Virginia is the fact that we have elections every year - federal elections in even numbered years and state elections in odd numbered years. It is easy to get burned out. However, given the threat - at least in our view - that Donald Trump and a Republican congressional majority pose to LGBT rights and civil liberties in general, it is all the more important that we elect Ralph Northam as Virginia's next governor. We need a firewall against some of the worse extreme policies that may be forth coming, especially given some of Trump's anti-LGBT appointees to date. The husband (Barry D. Menser) and I know Ralph and his wife personally and we believe it is absolutely critical that we do all we can to support his election effort. Hence, we are on the host committee for a fundraiser on December 8, 2016. We encourage you to join us at the event (if you cannot attend, we will be hosting an event in our home at a later date). The details are below:

Please join

Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam

and

Jimmy R. Chisman | Jerri & Frank Dickseski | Duncan
& Diana Garnett

Barry Menser & Mike Hamar | Jay & Tara Joseph |
Mamie Locke

Monty Mason | Jim McNider | Ross & Martha Mugler

Leonard A. Bennett & Dr. Drina A. Northam

BJ Roberts | Molly & Forrest Ward

At the

Northam For Governor Hampton
Kick-Off

Thursday, December 8, 2016 – 6:00pm to 8:00pm

At the home of Molly and Forrest Ward
801 Park Place | Hampton, VA 23669

As LGBT Americans gather for Thanksgiving this year, in many cases a pall will color the celebration as we await for the other shoes to fall in the wake of Donald Trump's election and the elevation of homophobes and Christofascists to positions where they can harm and undermine the lives of the LGBT community. Sadly, this trend is not unique to America and defeating it will require renewed resolve and efforts to resist and defeat the pestilence of fundamentalist religion and the hatred that it promotes. As we have seen over and over again, religion is the principle threat to human rights and a never ending justification for evil and hatred. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the negative, animus inspired trend in other parts of the world. Here are highlights:

The moral arc of
history bends toward justice. Right?

Not necessarily,
especially when it comes to justice for LGBTQ people and other sexual and
gender minorities. Here in the United States, recent gains are now imperiled by
the upcoming Trump presidency. And around the world, there are many places
where, contrary to Dan Savage’s popular video series, it is steadily getting worse.

Consider three
very different examples: Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria. Three continents,
three different cultural and religious contexts, different forms of government
with different kinds of leaders. And yet, in all three, a steadily worsening
situation for LGBTQ people.

1. Brazil

For sexual and
gender minorities, Brazil has long experienced the best of times and the worst
of times. The country is cosmopolitan, libertine, and legally progressive, with
laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity (SOGI in international human rights parlance).

[A] primary
reason is the export of U.S.-based homophobia. Evangelicals have risen from 5
percent of the Brazilian population in 1970 to nearly 25 percent today, and
their leaders—many trained in the United
States—have exported the U.S. Christian right’s extreme homophobia
to the Brazilian context.

They are also in
Brazil’s congress. The “parliamentary coup” that removed liberal president
Dilma Rousseff from office was accomplished with back-benchers affiliated with
evangelical Christian groups.

Now,
with the conservative government led by Michel Temer (and his all-male cabinet), those factions are
in power. Investigative journalist Joao Ximenes Braga told The Daily Beast that
the Temer government has already shut down human rights programs in the country
and that members of his coalition have called for a repeal of laws protecting
LGBTQ people.

[W]ith Brazil’s
right wing in power, the precarious situation of LGBTQ people in the country is
threatened still further.

2. Indonesia

Indonesia is
half a world away and threatened by right-wing Islam, rather than right-wing
evangelical Christianity—but some of the patterns are eerily familiar.

According to a
recent report by Human
Rights Watch, 2016 has marked a turning point in the country. “Beginning in
January 2016,” the report said, “a series of anti-LGBT public comments by
government officials grew into a cascade of threats and vitriol against LGBT
Indonesians by state commissions, militant Islamists, and mainstream religious
organizations. That outpouring of intolerance has resulted in proposals of laws
which pose a serious long-term threat to the rights and safety of LGBT
Indonesians.”

The severity and swiftness of the
persecution . . . . is particularly surprising for Indonesia, which prides
itself on its moderate form of Islam. In the past, anti-LGBT acts were largely
confined to militant Islamists, even though anti-gay sentiment is widespread.

But
this was different. Government officials
have called for LGBT organizations to be banned from campuses and for LGBT
people to be banned from holding office. One minister called being LGBT “a
disease of the chromosome, and it should be treated.” . . . Meanwhile, a group
of conservative law professors has filed a court case attempting
to force the criminalization of same-sex sexual behavior. A paramilitary
training program with 1.8 million participants declared
homosexuality to be one of the nation’s enemies.

What’s
behind the flareup? Activists say the abrupt shift
in government rhetoric is “cower[ing] in the face of militant Islamists.” And
indeed, the rightward drift in Indonesian political life—not entirely unlike
that in Brazil—appears to be part of the reason for the change in official
rhetoric, with the attendant consequences felt in the streets of Jakarta.
Ironically, Indonesia’s relatively tolerant indigenous form of Islam is being
supplanted by fundamentalist Islam brought in from outside—yet the Islamists
claim to be protecting Indonesian culture.

3. Nigeria

Nigeria is the
most populous nation in Africa, with 173 million people. And in 2014, it passed
one of Africa’s worst anti-gay laws, the so-called Same-Sex Marriage
Prohibition Act.On paper, the
SSMPA merely prohibits anything that could support same-sex marriage. In
reality, however, it’s known as the “Jail the Gays Law” and has been used as a
pretext for horrifying violence, state-sanctioned or state-tolerated, against
LGBTs.

Nor
was the SSMPA a backlash against the United States—or to same-sex marriage,
which no one has advocated for in Nigeria. Rather, Christian LGBT activist
Davis Mac-Iyalla told The Daily Beast, the real battle is religious in nature.
African Anglican Church leaders, “tainted” by the Episcopal Church’s support
for LGBT people, took a hard line in order not to seem more lenient than
Muslims (Sharia governs 12 Nigerian states and punishes homosexuality by
imprisonment, caning, or stoning).

“It
is time the international community take a pause on its relationship with
Nigeria,” Alimi said, “and demand a detailed evaluation of the Nigeria human
rights record as it concerns LGBT people. The picture is more bleak than we
imagined.”

While the husband and I are thankful for the good things in life that we enjoy, we also understand the precarious nature of our rights and safety. Be thankful, but be prepared to fight and resist.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency and the emboldening of Christofascists and haters in general that has been a key part of Trump's campaign has not just LGBT Americans terrified. LGBT communities overseas, especially in Africa and Muslim nations are worried that the new regime will usher in an end to America's stance in support of LGBT rights and the decriminalizing of homosexuality. Based on what is happening in Tanzania, such fears appear to be completely justified. For years American Christofascists have been exporting anti-gay extremism to developing nations and brainwashing the locals into believing that homosexuality is a colonial import to their countries when the truth is just the opposite. Anti-gay beliefs and penal code provisions were imported to those nations by - you guessed it - Christian missionaries who were obsessed with imposing Victorian sexual mores on the inhabitants of their colonies. As noted in many previous posts, wherever the missionaries went tolerance, if not full acceptance of homosexuality, was brutally stamped out, with those involved in same sex relations being executed and/or imprisoned. A piece in the Washington Post looks at the anti-gay jihad underway in Tanzania. Here are highlights:

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania —East African nations have launched
some of the world’s most vicious campaigns against gay men and women, outlawing
same-sex liaisons and threatening punishments of years in jail.

But in a move that has alarmed health workers, Tanzania is
turning its anti-homo­sexual fury in a new direction — targeting HIV/AIDS
programs that have helped tame a disease that once ravaged the region.

Last month, the minister of healthannouncedthat Tanzania will ban HIV/AIDS
outreach projects aimed at gay men, pending a review. That forced the closure,
at least temporarily, of U.S.-funded programs that provide testing, condoms and
medical care to gays. About 30 percent of gay men in Tanzania are
HIV-positive; now health workers say that figure could rise.

Tanzania’s actions appear to mark the first time that a
country has suspended parts of the United States’ hugely successful foreign
HIV/AIDS initiative in an attempt to crack down on the gay community.

The
ban comes after months of bitter speeches and threats from Tanzanian officials
aimed at the gay community and at organizations treating its HIV/AIDS patients.
This year, police raided two U.S.-funded HIV/AIDS organizations and seized
confidential patient information and supplies, officials said. In September,
the deputy minister of health, Hamisi Kigwangalla, accused HIV treatment
organizations of “promoting homosexuality.”

People convicted
of same-sex liaisons in Tanzania can be jailed for up to 30 years.

The health minister, Ummy Mwalimu, explained in a statement
last month that officials had suspended HIV/AIDS outreach programs for gay
patients to review whether they promoted same-sex relationships.

“In
the short term, there are people who won’t go to [health] service centers, and
if they aren’t on antiretrovirals, what happens? It’s a major concern,” said
Warren Naamara, a doctor who is the director of theU.N. program on HIV/AIDS in Tanzania, referring to the drugs
that suppress the virus.

PEPFAR, or the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, launched by George W. Bush with bipartisan support, has
become one of the most important U.S. assistance programs ever in Africa.
Tanzania is an example of its success. Since 2002, the overall HIV/AIDS rate in
the country has declined from 12 percent to 5 percent. The number of
people receiving treatment has grown in the past five years from 289,000 to
over 700,000.

But
even as assistance programs have sharply reduced the death toll from AIDS, some
countries in eastern Africa have been escalating their campaigns against
homosexuality. . . . This year, a Kenyan high court ruled that“anal tests” aimed at determining people’s sexual
orientation were legal.

[S]ince
John Magufuli was elected president last year, the government’s tolerance on
the issue hasdisintegrated. Although Magufuli has not said anything publicly about
homosexuality, a number of his appointees have made harsh remarks. Critics of
gay rights say this nation — which has large numbers of Muslims and Christians
— must protect traditional values.

U.S. officials
said they are hopeful that the outreach programs will soon be restored, noting
that the health minister has said the government is considering which HIV
services would be appropriate for the gay community. But members of that
community are pessimistic.

“It’s clear that the government doesn’t care whether we live
or die,” said one 22-year-old gay man who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because of fear of punishment.

The take away? That religion - especially those of the Abrahamic tradition - are a pestilence on society. The embrace of ignorance and hatred of others are the twin pillars of all three variations. Judaism and Christianity devolve from myths written by ignorant unknown authors while Islam traces to a man who nowadays would be permanently locked up in a psych ward. Yet, we still give deference to these so-called faiths. Why?

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

The dining area set for dinner with the husband and six friends tomorrow

Fourteen years ago I had my first Thanksgiving after I had come out and moved to an apartment from the family home. While I had dinner on Thanksgiving with my late parents in their home in Virginia Beach along with some of my siblings, my children were not present and, truth be told, it was perhaps the worse Thanksgiving of my lifetime. I knew very few people after having been abandoned by most of friends from the straight phase of my life and depression was my near constant companion. Fast forward to today and I have the life I wanted back then but never expected to have: a loving husband, great relationships with my children and grandchildren, and an involved and active social life.

In contrast to that bleak and depressed Thanksgiving in 2002, tomorrow the husband I will host dinner for six friends and then afterward we will all go down the street to the home of neighbors for a "pie contest " - I baked a pie to take - with even more friends. On Saturday, the daughters and grandchildren will come to the house. I never could have envisioned the happiness and stability that I now have even though my therapist always lectured me that it would if only I would be patient and let go of the self-pity.

I don't mean to sound like I am bragging or self-satisfied. Rather, my message to those coming out later in life as I did who may be experiencing the sadness and heartache I did, hang in there. Time is on your side and in almost all cases your children, if you have them, will come around and support you and love you. Let them know that you are there for them and always will be. With time, they will figure it all out in time. As far as rebuilding a social circle, that too can happen with time and effort. Get involved in LGBT organizations, the arts, politics, or all of the foregoing and you will make new friends. Some may even turn out to be some of the best friends you will ever have, It seems like an eternity at the time, but you too can move on and live a happy and authentic life. Find some happiness this Thanksgiving.

As always, feel free to call or e-mail me if you feel the need. I feel blessed to be able to help others on their journey.

First we saw anti-black, anti-LBGT Jeff Sessions tapped by Donald Trump to be Attorney General of the United States. Now, Trump has tapped anti-LGBT extremist billionaire Betsy DeVos to head the Department of Education. Not only is DeVos stridently anti-LGBT rights, but she is a rabid supporter of school choice and school vouchers, a system that would drain funding from public schools and help fund schools run by Christofascist denominations. Indeed, DeVos would happily do away with public schools all together. For those unfamiliar with DeVos, she and her husband have contributed huge sums of money to anti-LGBT and anti-public school causes. Meanwhile, neither DeVos nor any of her children have ever darkened the door of a public school, yet she is now to head the Department of Education which focuses - at least historically - on public education. A piece at Joe My God looks at the DeVos family's anti-gay, anti-public school history. Here are article highlights:

Her family is one of NOM’s most massive contributors. TheDetroit Newsreports:

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday said he
intends to appoint West Michigan GOP mega donor and philanthropist Betsy DeVos
to be his education secretary, putting an ardent supporter of school choice in
charge of the nation’s education policy.

DeVos, 58, is seen as a national leader in the school
choice movement, which she has called an attempt to “empower” parents to find
good schools for their children, whether they be traditional public schools in
other neighborhoods, charter schools, virtual schools or private institutions.

DeVos is a former Michigan Republican Party chairwoman
whose husband, Dick, unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2006. The DeVos family,
heirs to the Amway Corp. fortune, are the most prolific donors to the Michigan
Republican Party, GOP officeholders and candidates.

The Douglas and Maria DeVos Foundation, financially
supported by Amway president Doug DeVos, donated $500,000 to the National
Organization for Marriage (NOM), an anti-gay marriage group that was one of the
leading advocates against same-sex marriage initiatives in eight states.
Because of that 2009 donation, gay rights activist are calling for a boycott of
Ada, Mich.-based Amway, a health and beauty products company, and its
affiliates including the Orlando Magic basketball team, which DeVos’ father and
Amway co-founder Richard DeVos owns.

DeVos and her husband also donated $200,000 to Michigan’s ballot
measure to ban same-sex marriage.

The
Michigan billionaire is a troubling choice, given her extreme history of
supporting anti-LGBT causes and opposing efforts to bring fairness and equality
to LGBT Americans. Between 2010 and 2013, the DeVos family and their various
foundations have given millions of dollars to anti-LGBT groups, including Focus
on the Family, Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Each of these organizations has
fought vehemently against protecting LGBT students from discrimination and
harassment. They have also lobbied for legislation to prohibit students from
using the restroom that matches their gender identity; opposed rights for same
sex parents; and are fighting to require education professionals – including
teachers, counselors, therapists, administration and more – to out LGBT
students to their parents, even if they are not ready.

An LGBT rights organization, Freedom for All Americans, had this to say about DeVos:

The
Michigan billionaire is a troubling choice, given her extreme history of
supporting anti-LGBT causes and opposing efforts to bring fairness and equality
to LGBT Americans. Between 2010 and 2013, the DeVos family and their various
foundations have given millions of dollars to anti-LGBT groups, including Focus
on the Family, Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Each of these organizations has
fought vehemently against protecting LGBT students from discrimination and
harassment. They have also lobbied for legislation to prohibit students from
using the restroom that matches their gender identity; opposed rights for same
sex parents; and are fighting to require education professionals – including
teachers, counselors, therapists, administration and more – to out LGBT
students to their parents, even if they are not ready.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.